This just blew the Digital Bolex project out of the water.

[timdrage]

Hmmm. An idea. In my upcoming dramatic project I'll utilize the whole 2.8 space with toy chariots. Like that we can save production money while making lots of money with toy chariot races.

I'm sold!

[Will2]

Hmmm. An idea. In my upcoming dramatic project I'll utilize the whole 2.8 space with toy chariots. Like that we can save production money while making lots of money with toy chariot races.

I'm sold!

How hard could the real thing be? I mean, you're shooting film, why not real chariots?

Also, anamorphic lenses on the UltraPan8 would be the way to go. I'm sure someone could work out the math, but that combined with real chariots would make the movie BETTER than Ben Hur.

[bolextech]

That kind of defeats the purpose, as the whole idea of UltraPan is to eliminate the need for anamorphic lenses.

Jean-Louis

[wado1942]

Ah, but WITH an anamorphic lens, you have a 5.6:1 frame. You could see what the world looks like to that Cyclops guy from X-men. Your uploads would effectively be 1920 x 342 if transferring for HD and 640 x 114 for SD!

Sorry, I just think anything wider than 2:1 is a waste unless it's in a huge theater. Then it's OK to go as high as 2.35:1.

[Will2]

Ah, but WITH an anamorphic lens, you have a 5.6:1 frame. You could see what the world looks like to that Cyclops guy from X-men.

Exactly. Why stop at wide when you can get crazy freakin' wide.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Tsk, tsk. Such is the intent of some insecure fellow filmmakers that they imagine a filmic divide between classic squarish aspect ratios and the ultrawide variations. There is no divide. A rejuvenation of a classic format is exciting new territory and I welcome the voyage of discovery.

Some of us dream large format and have implemented a practical compromise between weight, non-anamorphics, extended magazine runs, increased resolution, a large parts inventory and a robust precise design that will still be around 40 years from now as the plastic gearing of most Super 8 cameras crumble to dust. In fact we have now included Double Super 8 into the design and have extended it's longevity based on DS8 roll film with its classic distinct smaller perforations.

I am here for the longterm. More to come. There is so much to explore and invent that a 24 hour clock is insufficient.

[Lunar07]

This is your preference. Go ahead and add an anamorphic lens or two if you want.
The format allows for masking. If you want 2:1 you can do that and WITHOUT an anamorphic lens.
As for 2.35 being a waste unless it is in a huge theater. Who said so? You? Fine. This is your opinion. 2.35 can be effectively utilized in experimental work. Do you want me to give you examples?

In my opinion, ONLY the S8 crowd have cheapened the format with the use of cameras that have not been serviced in ages. Cameras that sooner or later with go to plastic dust.
In addition to UP8 2.8 with R8 film, we have now UP8 3.1 with DS8 film.
Cameras that can last for a 100 years or more.
You want to mask to 1.33 go ahead.
Any other aspect ratio. Fine.
Someone is giving you the opportunity to shoot wide screen in a professional way - Why not????
OR instead, go ahead, buy yourself a 1.5X anamorphic lens for 2:1. Have you checked the prices on eBay lately?

Ah, but WITH an anamorphic lens, you have a 5.6:1 frame. You could see what the world looks like to that Cyclops guy from X-men. Your uploads would effectively be 1920 x 342 if transferring for HD and 640 x 114 for SD!

Sorry, I just think anything wider than 2:1 is a waste unless it's in a huge theater. Then it's OK to go as high as 2.35:1.

[Lunar07]

Exactly. Why NOT!
UP8 allows you to mask to any aspect ratio. And the opportunity presented itself to have a camera with 2.8 aspect ratio.
So I do not understand the big deal here.
For many projects 2:1 is enough. The view finder on the camera shows the 2.4 frame. Many projects look cool with 2.4

Ah, but WITH an anamorphic lens, you have a 5.6:1 frame. You could see what the world looks like to that Cyclops guy from X-men.

Exactly. Why stop at wide when you can get crazy freakin' wide.

[carllooper]

An anamorphic lens might be found cheap but using them can be really painful.

When retrofitting such (as one typically does) they need special mounting, require special attention to focus, introduce more colour aberration, and decrease the resolution (technically they should increase the rez relative to the alternatives below because you have more film per screen area, but you also have more glass which works against this - on the other hand there are also ways to correct for this in post).

Alternatives to anamorphics, amongst others, are:

1. Masking the film - you can have any aspect you want, but you can also waste a lot of film.

2. Halving the vertical pitch of the film so that you get two widescreen frames for what was otherwise one squarish frame.

Compared to the first alternative the second is a really good one because it gives you two frames for the price of one, ie. has an economic benefit. It doesn't waste any film. The resulting aspect is just a function of the physical film/camera rather than a result of any creative preference. So for a specific creative aspect one can then fine tune it with some additional masking, either from the sides or from the top/bottom. While you waste film with this additional masking you waste far less than the first alternative. It's purely economics here. Optimising the amount of film you burn through. If you can get twice the running time with the same quality result as the first, then why not?

Or to defeat one of the purposes of the alternative (and why not), one could then reintroduce an anamorphic on top of this. Would be a good experiment! It's when you come to actually using an anamorphic that you discover the reasons why you might want to wish you hadn't. But on the other hand one could also easily discover an affinity with the anamorphic. Many people have enjoyed anamorphics. A friend of mine loves them. He doesn't care about the hassle. It's all part of it. You won't really know until you try. That's what experimental film is all about. Doing something regardless of what result occurs. If more colour aberation occurs, so what. If it's a ridiculously wider image (or transformed back into 4:3 format !) - so what. Who here would refuse to look at it? Nobody. We'd all be curious. The result may confirm the reasons why we don't shoot that way ourselves, or it might change our minds. Or it becomes the exception which proves the rule. Either way the work would be just perfectly fine.

Re. Ben Hur. I always dream of sci-fi movies (like 2001) rather than Ben Hur (or Lawrence of Arabia) when dreaming in widescreen. When I think of Ben Hur all I want to do is go back to 4:3 format.

Here's an interesting note about the human eye: The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view]

It means that no matter how wide a film is, and no matter how close you get to the film, you will always see the left and right of the frame. To exclude such a boundary you would need a screen that curved around you by some amount.

C

[Lunar07]

An anamorphic lens might be found cheap but using them can be really painful.

Carl -
1.5X anamorphic lenses are anything but cheap. They were cheap years ago. Now you have to dip into your savings to get one.
I understand what you are getting at. But you can not find a cheap one.
Also, who would use an anamorphic lens when one can shoot in native wide screen )
I was too glad to get rid of couple of anamorphic lenses for a UP8 camera.

To reiterate, the beauty of UP8 is that one can mask for 16:9 or 2:1 or go for 2.8:1 or 2.35:1
No reason for anyone to complain.

In addition, with a 1:1 shaft Bolex, one can get the Tobin Crystal Synch motor. or the Tobin Time Lapse motor to use with a UP8 camera.

[wado1942]

Khartoum is a great example of pushing it too far.
http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/images/70mm.jpg
Notice how wide the frame is already and then there's a 25% anamorphic stretch on projection. I didn't realize till after the fact that I scanned the print backwards, so it's not quite true to the movie.

What about using an anamorphic adapter, but rotating it 90 degrees from normal? It's not nearly as much wasted real estate on the playback system. A 1.5X vertical anamorphic squeeze will give you a 1.733 projection, which isn't bad at all!

[carllooper]

1.5X anamorphic lenses are anything but cheap. They were cheap years ago. Now you have to dip into your savings to get one.

I got an anamorphic a few years back. An Iscomorphot 2X one. For 800. Is that cheap? I don't really know. There are cheaper ones on ebay I noticed. This was before I adopted UP8. I did some tests with it for a Super8 project to be shot on a Leicina. But when I did the numbers on UP8 it turned out UP8 would end up being cheaper per frame than Super8 (based on local costs) and twice the horizontal definition of Super8! It was a no brainer to adopt UP8.

Also, who would use an anamorphic lens when one can shoot in native wide screen ) I was too glad to get rid of couple of anamorphic lenses for a UP8 camera.

Indeed. But without an anamorphic I found my widest lens, a 10mm, wasn't wide enough for what I wanted. So I got a 5mm adapter and it was definitely well worth it. Well it will be when I get around to actually shooting something. But in the meantime the view through the viewfinder is just brilliant. When I walk through the house looking through the viewfinder, imagining shots, the variation in perspective looks so damned cool. Or hot.

To reiterate, the beauty of UP8 is that one can mask for 16:9 or 2:1 or go for 2.8:1 or 2.35:1 No reason for anyone to complain.

Yeah for sure.

In addition, with a 1:1 shaft Bolex, one can get the Tobin Crystal Synch motor. or the Tobin Time Lapse motor to use with a UP8 camera.

And for the 8:1 shaft as well.

C

[Lunar07]

1.5X anamorphic lenses are anything but cheap. They were cheap years ago. Now you have to dip into your savings to get one.

I got an anamorphic a few years back. An Iscomorphot 2X one. For 800. Is that cheap? I don't really know. There are cheaper ones on ebay I noticed. This was before I adopted UP8.

That was years ago. Now they are more expensive especially the 1.5X anamorphic lenses from ISCO.
Also, the cheaper ones tend to be anamorphic projection lenses. They are usually longer.

I found my widest lens, a 10mm, wasn't wide enough for what I wanted. So I got a 5mm adapter and it was definitely well worth it.

For UP8 2.8, 10mm is the NORMAL Focal length. So yes indeed you need wide angle attachment for the 10mm lens, or get a 5mm or 3.5mm lens

[Lunar07]

What about using an anamorphic adapter, but rotating it 90 degrees from normal? It's not nearly as much wasted real estate on the playback system. A 1.5X vertical anamorphic squeeze will give you a 1.733 projection, which isn't bad at all!

For UP8, an Interesting idea for certain projects. maybe worth trying.
However, for the usual dramatic narration-based projects, this will introduce big problems in my opinion.
Because this will change what is agreed upon as "NORMAL" focal length from 10mm to 16mm.
Which in turn takes us back to the question: Which one is better? cropping UP8 frame into 16:9, or using above method.

[carllooper]

What about using an anamorphic adapter, but rotating it 90 degrees from normal? It's not nearly as much wasted real estate on the playback system. A 1.5X vertical anamorphic squeeze will give you a 1.733 projection, which isn't bad at all!

For UP8, an Interesting idea for certain projects. maybe worth trying.
However, for the usual dramatic narration-based projects, this will introduce big problems in my opinion.
Because this will change what is agreed upon as "NORMAL" focal length from 10mm to 16mm.
Which in turn takes us back to the question: Which one is better? cropping UP8 frame into 16:9, or using above method.

What is normal? Whatever you want really. I'm intending to master back to 35mm via a digital intermediate and do anamorphic projection. The 2K DI for that is 1828 x 1556, which expands out on projection to: 3656 x 1556, which has an aspect of 2.35:1

If one's work was to premiere on an HDTV one might select 16:9 (ie. 1.77:1). When working in digital media a standard such as 1920 x 1080 has some useful scaling properties that result in whole numbers.

/1 = 1920 x 1080
/1.5 = 1280 x 720
/2 = 960 x 540
/2.5 = 768 x 432
/3 = 640 x 360

Computer screens are all over the shop. My computer screen is 1920 x 1200. If I were to intending to premiere on that I might shoot 1.6:1 (so as to avoid cropping or black bars).

Here are a range of "normal" aspects

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/r ... aspect.htm


For 16:9 the question asked was: which is better? using anamorphic on UP8 or cropping UP8. If you can get a good 1.5X anamorphic onto UP8, and you don't mind all of the attendant issues (or you've solved them), then anamorphic might be technically better as it would be using more of the film to produce the target image.

One problem is that an anamorphic, in 'normal' operation, automatically gives you a wider field of view for whatever lens you would have otherwise used on 4:3. So if you want that same wider angle with the anamorphic in opposite use, you'll have to introduce a wider angle lens with the anamorphic (ie. wider than you might have otherwise used). Which means you may also require a larger anamorphic than you might have otherwise used. And of course, the increase in glass may very well degrade whatever improvement the additional film might otherwise give you.

How much film is lost during a crop? If I've got the following right it's 37%, which is quite a lot so a well used anamorphic on UP8 could very well get more out of UP8 than a crop.

UP8 = 10.52mm x 3.75mm = 39.45 sqmm (full UP8)
UP8 Cropped for 16:9 = 6.666mm x 3.75mm = 25 sqmm (used)
Amount cropped = 39.45 sqmm - 25 sqmm = 14.45 sqmm (cropped)
Percentage cropped = 14.45 (cropped) / 39.45 (full UP8) = 0.366 = 37% (cropped)

Without the math, a 1.5X anamorphic will also require some minor cropping: 5%. So the difference between crop and 1.5X anamorphic will be an additional 32% of the film being used rather than 37%, which is still, of course, significant.

C